Players and their ridiculous excuses for illegal hits

[Ivan]

Matt Cooke and John Scott were I can 100% intentional intent to injure. I can't say that about Wards tackle on Gronk

Orpik's hit was actually a clean hit. Hockey is the one sport I have played my entire life and that is a hit people take all the time. Didn't target the head, shoulder to body hit , puck was within his area. Just bad luck with Loui getting hurt. Thornton way over reacted to the hit because of the previous few games and frustration setting in. No one but the bench saw the Neal hit on Marchand. When he was being hit Thornton was looking up ice at Orpik.

Neal just got 5 for the knee to Marchand's head, and even if he didn't see it Thornton was well aware of what happened. I can see people thinking Orpik's hit was legit but imo he went at his head with his forearms, which made it a dirty hit. I agree that Thornton went too far but the question of what to do still remains, and as hockey player i am pretty sure you would agree that you cannot allow the other team to take repeated shots at your teammates without responding, which was the point i was making that Andy Johnson refused to answer. No doubt because he knows that answering it honestly would completely undermine his argument about "the moral high ground," which is a really gray area when we are addressing how to deal with dirty play in sports. I won't suggest that there is any moral high ground in retaliating when your teammates are injured but I also know that the reality is that as a teammate you cannot simply stand by and allow your teammates to be attacked by opponents without addressing it on the field. I also find it beyond hypocritical that Boston sports fans who to a person cheered Alex Rodriquez being deliberately hit by a pitch but then try to make a "moral high ground" argument when it comes to retaliating in other sports. There isn't anything "moral" about it, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary at times.


FTR-I can't stand A-Rod, and had no problem with them taking a shot at him.

 

[Ivan]

FTR-I am a really passionate person and sometimes it gets the better of me and i can be a d.ck about making my case at those times. My apologies to those i offend when it happens (OK- not all of you, but most), and I have no doubt this is the case with this topic. My view hasn't changed but i do see how others can see it differently. I hate dirty play in sports and wish it were treated much more harshly by the leagues, as with the Savard and Erickkson cases i feel that there are times when players should be banned either for life or for a really really long time, and i honestly don't understand why the really dirty players are allowed to continue playing when those they attack are often out of their game for good as a result-the Cooke attack on Savard being a poster child for such matters. I would love to see the leagues treat these attacks by suspending the player for as long as it takes the player who was injured to fully return, and if they don't return, as was the case with Savard, then the player who attacked them doesn't either--adios Matt Cooke you piece of garbage. I am well aware that my views on this are emotionally charged as is my view about as Deus calls it "self policing." And while that may not be "moral," neither imo is it moral to stand by and do nothing while your teammates have their careers either jeopardized or ended by your opponents. And i find it very surprising that anyone who has played sports could invoke a "moral high ground" argument against "self policing," as just standing by idly while your teammate gets cold****ed doesn't really strike me as very "moral" either. Either way i think that's another discussion for another day, but a really interesting one to have imo. I don't like the idea of wishing injury on anyone, however i do believe their are people/athletes who do go out of their way to injure other athletes, and imo if there is a track record to that regard then "self policing" does come into play.

 

[letekro]

Was the hit illegal? If not, what is the meaning of this insipid thread?

 

[Aßßynormal]

Was the hit illegal? If not, what is the meaning of this insipid thread?

Perhaps my memory is in error, but wasn't Pollard's '08 hit on Brady legal? If not in error, than was it unethical? The following year it was definitely illegal. If I remember correctly, horse collaring was also legal too.

There is room for legal plays to be unethical. This includes the fact that the helmet wasn't involved, still, the player is responsible for the rest of his body. The best case for Ward was that he was lazy and lacked regard for the player being hit but not intending to directly cause injury. That's still negligence. More likely, he was attempting to deliver a big hit.

If a player can't make a tackle on another player without launching, in the close area of the knee, enough to tear it up, then he should admit defeat and allow the player to pass on. In the alternative, he can find another way to tackle. Players are responsible for where their bodies go. Finally, why make it illegal when an unwritten player rule exists to not go for the area of the knees?

The rules are the rules, to the head they exist and they are here to stay, adjust to them without going for the knees. I bet it's illegal next year. It certainly should be.

 

[Kontradiction]

Was the hit illegal? If not, what is the meaning of this insipid thread?

 

[Ring 6]

My apologies, i forgot that your opinions are objective and everyone else subjective. Since you have no interest in responding to the questions i put to you the "discussion" is over.

When your opinion is that you are reading the players mind, yes.

Ward launched himself into Gronkowski's knee,

No he didn't.

that is as f.cking "substantiated" as it gets.

Not even close

By your "standard" there is no such thing as a dirty hit unless the player acknowledges,

No by my standiard YOU don't know if his intent was to injure unless he tells you.
Some unfortunate hits are unfortunate and some are intended. You cannot know which is which unless you are the player who made the hit.
There is a gap as wide as the Grand Canyon between an intnetional dirty hit, and you knowing whether it was an intentional dirty hit, yet you seem to want to be able to make that judgment based on the pisspoor facts at your disposal.

and in Meriweather's case even that isn't enough.

In Meriwhethers case he didn't acknowledge anything, he said if you overlegislate high hits you will get more low hits and the consequences may be worse. Of course he was not extremely eloquent in saying it but that doesnt change what was said.

 

[patriotsdynasty12189]

Im confused the ones that are shooting their families them themselves arent WR or Defensive backs they are offensive lineman and linebackers. Big hits to arent the main cause its the big hossburgs upfront who everyplay bash their heads against eachother everyplay, not the WR who takes maybe 1 big shot a game....Ward was completely right in what he said, Goodell made this mess, he was just following what they tell them.

 

[doesntmatter1]

I'm sad Gronk got hurt, but I thought it was a good hit. I honestly think you should be allowed to put a guy on the ground anyway you want as long as it isn't over the top like late hits etc. I honestly had no problem with head shots either. I have always seen it as the qb's fault for throwing it into a dangerous area.

If one of our safeties hits somebody the exact way next week I will have no problem with it. Injuries are part of the game and so are nascar collisions that I love. Its just unfortunate that it happened to one of our guys.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No shoulders, chest, ribs, stomach, waist, hips, thighs, or ankles to tackle, only the head and knees:

Exactly, some moron players (and some moron fans here) think the head and knees are the only places players can be hit. Incredibly stupid, and I hope some of the people here who think that way, don't have important jobs that deal with people, I'd be mortified to do business with such morons. Scary how stupid some people are.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly, some moron players (and some moron fans here) think the head and knees are the only places players can be hit. Incredibly stupid, and I hope some of the people here who think that way, don't have important jobs that deal with people, I'd be mortified to do business with such morons. Scary how stupid some people are.

Is it really necessary to call people names and insult their intelligence because they simply disagree with you. Obviously not because in order to do so you had to create a strawman that no one in this thread or on this board ever even implied.
These are the kind of posts that make me think twice before coming here.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Is it really necessary to call people names and insult their intelligence because they simply disagree with you. Obviously not because in order to do so you had to create a strawman that no one in this thread or on this board ever even implied.
These are the kind of posts that make me think twice before coming here.

When people are saying such hits are "good hits" I have to question their intelligence. Legal, maybe, good hit ? Only a moron thinks that way, when there are so many areas of the body that can be hit that can take a ball carrier down. Targeting the knee is not neccessary. Yet players are even saying they are gonna take out other players knees because they can't hit high. From the chest to the thighs, very large tackling radius, but only people with low IQ's don't get it. Sorry if the truth hurts.

 

[Observer]

The reality is that if that is not an illegal or even dirty hit, our guys should try to drive their shoulder through the opponents knee every single time. You make a good tackle, guy comes back to make another play. You land a good blow, don't have to worry about him for the rest of the game. It's too effective to not try.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The reality is that if that is not an illegal or even dirty hit, our guys should try to drive their shoulder through the opponents knee every single time. You make a good tackle, guy comes back to make another play. You land a good blow, don't have to worry about him for the rest of the game. It's too effective to not try.

My sarcasm radar is getting a reading with this post.

 

[Deus Irae]

When people are saying such hits are "good hits" I have to question their intelligence. Legal, maybe, good hit ? Only a moron thinks that way, when there are so many areas of the body that can be hit that can take a ball carrier down. Targeting the knee is not neccessary. Yet players are even saying they are gonna take out other players knees because they can't hit high. From the chest to the thighs, very large tackling radius, but only people with low IQ's don't get it. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Your inability to grasp/accept that the rules are the rules, and good hits are good hits, does not equate to others having intelligence issues. It equates to your inability to grasp/accept that the rules are the rules, and good hits are good hits.

The players in the NFL disagree with you, including multiple players from your favorite team. While I'm sure you played about 40 years of NFL football and know the difficulties that the brand new rules are creating for these players even better than they do, it's just possible that those players may still offer an insight you missed in your many decades of playing in the league.

 

[Observer]

My sarcasm radar is getting a reading with this post.

Not sarcastic at all. I am totally serious about it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Your inability to grasp/accept that the rules are the rules, and good hits are good hits, does not equate to others having intelligence issues. It equates to your inability to grasp/accept that the rules are the rules, and good hits are good hits.

The players in the NFL disagree with you, including multiple players from your favorite team. While I'm sure you played about 40 years of NFL football and know the difficulties that the brand new rules are creating for these players even better than they do, it's just possible that those players may still offer an insight you missed in your many decades of playing in the league.

Good input here, but what constitutes a GOOD hit, and a POOR hit ? Was the hit on Gronk a well designed perfect form tackle ? Sure it got him down to the ground, it is considered a tackle, way to go Ward !! But is it a tackle that anyone who is learning football should follow ? Anyone who is learning the game of football should shy away from that particular tackle, unless they want to end the career of others, or want to be paralyzed, or wanna be embarrassed as the ball carrier hurdles such a poor tackle. I said in another thread, only 3 things could have come from that poor example of a tackle. 1) tackler destroys carriers knee 2) tackler gets paralyzed because he lead with his head and his head was perpendicular with the ground or 3) because the tackler is looking down at the ground, the carrier hurdles the tackler. Unfortunately #1 happened and fortunately #2 didn't happen. Invariably #2 will happen more often if players continue to attempt poor tackles like Ward's.

From what I'm hearing, the Pats had seen on video that the Browns are known for tackling low and someone attempted to hurdle one of the knee busting tackles but was unsuccessful.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Not sarcastic at all. I am totally serious about it.

Then I weep for your thought process. Nobody should wish injury on any player. Just read some of the mongoloids passing as humans on the Jet's messageboards gleefully cheering Gronk's blown out knee.

 

[Deus Irae]

Good input here, but what constitutes a GOOD hit, and a POOR hit ? Was the hit on Gronk a well designed perfect form tackle ? Sure it got him down to the ground, it is considered a tackle, way to go Ward !! But is it a tackle that anyone who is learning football should follow ? Anyone who is learning the game of football should shy away from that particular tackle, unless they want to end the career of others, or want to be paralyzed, or wanna be embarrassed as the ball carrier hurdles such a poor tackle. I said in another thread, only 3 things could have come from that poor example of a tackle. 1) tackler destroys carriers knee 2) tackler gets paralyzed because he lead with his head and his head was perpendicular with the ground or 3) because the tackler is looking down at the ground, the carrier hurdles the tackler. Unfortunately #1 happened and fortunately #2 didn't happen. Invariably #2 will happen more often if players continue to attempt poor tackles like Ward's.

From what I'm hearing, the Pats had seen on video that the Browns are known for tackling low and someone attempted to hurdle one of the knee busting tackles but was unsuccessful.

A perfectly executed 'form tackle' is not the only good tackle in the NFL, or in any league. And you calling this a poor example of a tackle doesn't make it so.

 

[Ring 6]

When people are saying such hits are "good hits" I have to question their intelligence. Legal, maybe, good hit ? Only a moron thinks that way, when there are so many areas of the body that can be hit that can take a ball carrier down. Targeting the knee is not neccessary. Yet players are even saying they are gonna take out other players knees because they can't hit high. From the chest to the thighs, very large tackling radius, but only people with low IQ's don't get it. Sorry if the truth hurts.

I'm going to stop here, because nothing good will come of me responding to you claiming people who don't see your unusual view are low IQ morons.
Perhaps someday we can discuss a topic that you can be rational about.

 

[Ozymandias]

I didn't bother to read through the entire thread, so pardon me if I sound like a broken record here...

The hit was completely legal and well within the rules as they are set forthright. Ward's comments are not nefarious or disingenuous, but they don't paint a complete picture. If he had went high, he'd probably be the one in the hospital for being crumpled.

If Ward had said, "I tackled low because I didn't want to get destroyed and run over." I'm not sure we'd be having this issue right now.

As it relates to low tackles, if they want to change the rules on those too, I'm sure they can, but the reality is I doubt there will be any changes to hits that have been completely legal from since the game's inception.

/bird'cents